Robinson Crusoe, Home School Hero
Robinson Crusoe,Home School HeroMARGARET EUSTACE FRANCEFROM 1970 to 2006, the only paperback edition of Daniel Defoe’s first sequel to TheLife and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719), The FartherAdventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719), came from an unlikely source: Focus on theFamily. The evangelical Christian organization chose to use a Victorian edition astheir copy text, to which they made further changes and added an originalintroduction and reader’s guide. The differences between the Focus on the Familyedition and the first edition are slight but telling; for example, the most amusingalteration involves a moment of levity that turns serious. In an attempt to prevent aconfrontation with a flotilla of natives in canoes, Crusoe sends Friday to determinetheir purpose. Friday’s summons elicits an unusual response: “Six of them, who werein the foremost or nighest Boat to us, turn’d their Canoes from us; and stoopingdown, shew’d us their naked Backsides, just as if in English, saving your Presence,they had bid us kiss---; whether this was a Defiance or a Challenge, we knew not; orwhether it was done in meer Contempt, or as a Signal to the rest” (first ed., 208).1The Focus on the Family edition’s more succinct rendition of the incident sacrificeskey details: “Six of them who were in the foremost or nighest boat to us turned theircanoes from us and showed us their naked backs. Whether this was a defiance orchallenge, or whether it was done in contempt or as a signal to the rest, we knew not”(146). This version, with the wording reprinted exactly from the Victorian edition,not only replaces “backside” with “back,” but it also excises Crusoe’s attempt toexplain the gesture as idiomatic, reducing the likelihood that the reader wouldunderstand “back” as a euphemism for “backside.”2 Anyone vaguely familiar withFocus on the Family and the evangelical Christian values that the group claims torepresent could hardly be surprised by their reliance on a copy text that covers theasses left bare in Defoe’s original.3 What is more surprising, and the subject of thisessay, is the way in which Focus on the Family’s publication of the first two CrusoeDigital Defoe: Studies in Defoe & His Contemporaries 3, no. 1 (fall 2011)ISSN 1948-1802
novels reinterprets this canonical piece of Western mythology and how thatinterpretation might serve their interests. Editorial emendations, both those preservedfrom the copy text and those instigated by the editor, along with the metatextualapparatus surrounding the Focus on the Family editions of both Crusoe novels, usethe violent content of Farther Adventures as a tool for building a Christian identitythat is resolutely unperturbed by the sight of blood. This emphasis on violence,despite the demonstrable squeamishness at depicting actual bodies noted above,makes this version of the Crusoe story consistent with contemporary evangelicalChristian media, including child-rearing manuals and the Left Behind series. Focus onthe Family’s insistence that the first two Crusoes be read together allows for a readingthat simultaneously celebrates the autonomy of home schooling while underscoringthe necessity of Christian community.Evangelical Christians enjoy faith-based versions of many elements of thesecular world: faith-based gyms, diets, heavy metal, and even their own Baldwinbrother.4 All represent attempts to refashion the secular world into something familiarbut Christ-centered. This movement to “co-opt or colonize the modern” does notlimit itself to popular culture (Cavalcanti 15). By publishing its own editions ofRobinson Crusoe and its sequel, The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, currentlylittle-known to the general public, Focus on the Family colonizes some of the mostcolonizing texts of the Western Canon. Where organizations like Christian Exodusand Quiverfull explicitly seek to re-settle and repopulate the United States,5 Focus onthe Family’s version of the Crusoe saga rewrites the country’s intellectual heritage, notonly by the metatextual framing of the novels, but by insisting that the Crusoe storyconsists of both the first novel and the second, a distinction at once anachronistic andartificial.6 Focus on the Family effectively creates its own version of the Crusoe story,appropriating one of the most widely taught novels into its own parallel canon.Significantly, Focus on the Family includes guides for home instruction in its editions;thus, these editions attempt to replace both the conventional Crusoe saga and theinstitutions in which it might be encountered.What kind of parallel canon does Focus on the Family seek to construct? Asillustrated by the dearth of current editions, Focus on the Family’s inclusion of FartherAdventures in its version of the Crusoe story is an unusual choice. Even during theeighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the novels were routinely publishedtogether, the second part was disparaged. Charles Dickens called Farther Adventures“perfectly contemptible” (158). No less a champion of Crusoe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau,who felt Robinson Crusoe was the sole book Émile should read before his twelfthbirthday, wanted his ideal pupil to study only Crusoe’s initial trip to the island. Therest, according to Rousseau, was pointless “rigmarole” (185). In choosing to end thesaga with Farther Adventures, Focus on the Family overlooks Defoe’s explicitlytheological final sequel Serious Reflections on the Life of Robinson Crusoe (1720) in favorof a text that is far more violent than the first novel, which is hardly a feast for6
pacifists. The organization’s selection of the first two novels and editing choicesreflect a tolerance for depictions of bloodshed as an essential part of developing aChristian identity. Brutal images punctuate both Robinson Crusoe and FartherAdventures. Everett Zimmerman notes that together the novels constitute “an intricateexploration of social and legal rationales for violence” (“Robinson Crusoe” 523), whileMelinda Rabb recently used both novels as evidence of eighteenth-century England’sfascination with male dismemberment (106). Still, like a sequel to a summerblockbuster, the body count rises from the first book to the second. Zimmermanconsiders Farther Adventures “a documentation of ungovernable passion,” enumeratingthe rage-driven massacres and threats of massacre within the novel (“Defoe” 385),while Robert Markley notes that even Crusoe’s fantasies become more violent in thesecond book (“Crusoe’s Farther Adventures” 43). Crusoe’s response to the idolworshipping Tartars in Farther Adventures encapsulates the protagonist’s shockingamenability to the use of force in the second novel: “I related the Story of our Men atMadagascar, and how they burnt and sack'd the Village there, and kill'd Man, Womanand Child, for their murdering one of our Men, just as it is related before; and when Ihad done, I added, that I thought we ought to do so to this Village” (333). In short,where Crusoe once imagined shooting and stabbing cannibals, in the second novel hedaydreams of torching heathen women and children.Though Focus on the Family anticipated contemporary critical approaches inconsidering the books together — Markley, Coby Dowdell, and Michael Austin haveall published insightful work on Defoe premised on reading Farther Adventures asintegral to Defoe’s vision of the Crusoe story — the organization’s aims have little todo with those of contemporary literary scholars. Unlike Dowdell and Markley, forexample, Focus on the Family does not include Farther Adventures as primarydocumentary evidence of English anxiety around trade and cultural exchange with theFar East. So what pedagogical merit do Christian homeschoolers find in FartherAdventures? If we consider Defoe’s Crusoe books alongside Dare to Discipline, Focuson the Family’s influential child-rearing manual, as well as in the context of politicaldebates about homeschooling and children’s corporal punishment, we begin to fathomwhy from 1999 until 2003 a Christian organization would produce a teaching editionof The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, a text that mainstream academicpublishers continue to ignore despite increased scholarly interest. Focus on the Familyencourages home study of Robinson Crusoe with Farther Adventures because theaddition of the second book along with editorial interventions shifts the nature andfunction of the story. Focus on the Family transforms Crusoe from Ian Watt’s homoeconomicus to a man struggling to understand violence and its proper applicationwithin a Christian context. In Focus on the Family’s version of Farther Adventures,the autonomous hero must accept and be guided by the wisdom of his Christiancommunity, wherever he finds it, or risk committing atrocities. This parallels Focuson the Family’s mission to make families less subject to state control, particularly in7
terms of education and corporal punishment, but not so autonomous that they willnot act in concert according to Focus on the Family’s agenda.Focus on the Family and EducationFocus on the Family was founded as a non-denominational evangelical Christianministry whose stated mission is “to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing theGospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defendingthe God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide”(“About Us”). While Focus on the Family has historically presented itself ascountering mainstream social movements as part of the faith-based parallel universe Iallude to above, the organization has had a profound impact on mainstream Americanpolitics. James Dobson, the influential founder and, until 2009, chairman of Focus onthe Family has, with his organization, been cited as a major factor in the 2004reelection of George W. Bush, in which two of every five votes for Bush came fromevangelical Christians (“The Triumph of the Religious Right”). Dobson and Focus onthe Family are also credited with igniting the national political career of Sarah Palin,as Dobson withheld support for the 2008 Republican Presidential ticket until hervice-presidential nomination (Malcolm). The catalyst for Focus on the Family’swidespread political and cultural influence was Where’s Dad? — a 1981 short filmdesigned to increase white-collar fathers’ involvement in the lives of their children, amessage still at the heart of Focus on the Family’s “media ministry” (Gilgoff 24).From its inception, Focus on the Family concerned itself with the installationof parents as the moral center of children’s lives, a structure difficult to maintain ifchildren divide their waking hours between home and school, as Dobson implies inDare to Discipline (1970). Dobson’s first book situates itself squarely opposite to“permissive” trends in parenting as represented by Dr. Benjamin Spock, whose Babyand Child Care has been issued in eight editions since 1946, selling over fifty millioncopies (Melson). As the title suggests, Dobson finds fault with Spock and hissuccessors’ abandonment of corporal punishment as a means of correcting behavior. Inaddition, Dobson’s educational agenda is at least as direct as his domestic agenda.While the challenge to Spock is implicit, Dobson attacks progressive educator A.S.Neill methodically and by name throughout Dare to Discipline.7 Dobson presentsNeill’s theories and contradicts them point by point, concluding by encouraging hisreaders to “note how many elements of the new morality can be traced to thepermissive viewpoint represented by Neill: God is dead; immorality is wonderful;nudity is noble; irresponsibility is groovy; disrespect and irreverence are fashionable;unpopular laws are to be disobeyed” (113). Dobson established himself as a publicexpert on family matters as an alternative to popular mainstream thinkers of the day,an oppositional relationship that would come to define Focus on the Family.8
In contrast to Spock, Dobson formulates the nuclear family as a domesticversion of biblical hierarchy, creating a “farmer-in-the-dell”-like chain of similes: thechild is led by the mother as the mother is led by the father as the father is led by theFather. Mothers embrace their role in this hierarchy by responding swiftly andphysically to children’s defiance. Dobson advocates spankings for children who talkback, because “when a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you hadbetter take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier” (27). Dobson details thephysical punishments delivered by his own mother and the reassurance it gave him toknow that incidental problems, like tardiness or poor time management, could bereasonably discussed, while challenges to authority would be settled by whateverobject his mother found to strike him with, even a girdle (30). Eithne Johnsonobserves that Dobson encourages mothers to emulate his own as a means ofempowerment within the strict domestic hierarchy. If mothers have, as Dobsonpresumes, the support of a husband and a broader Christian community, they can beconfident in their ability to apply force in the home properly. Physical punishmentmanifests mothers’ authority over their children tangibly and permanently, asDobson’s own recollections attest.Dobson devotes nearly as much space to education as family management. Thethird and fourth of the book’s seven chapters, “Discipline in the Classroom” and “TheBarriers to Learning,” are designed for educators as well as parents, and teachers areaddressed throughout. After outlining techniques for increased harmony andproductivity at school, Dobson seems to dismiss this possibility by devoting almostequal space to the dangers of public education. “Discipline Gone to Pot” begins with alitany of facts and bullet points illustrating the signs and varieties of drug abuse inpublic schools before launching into a harrowing second-person tale describing howthe influence of Bill, a schoolmate, leads a middle-class sixteen-year-old down aseemingly inevitable path from casual drug abuse to heroin addiction. At the chapter’sclose, Dobson quotes a heroin addict: “‘The doctor told my family it would have beenbetter and indeed kinder if the person who first got me hooked on dope had taken agun and blown my brains out, and I wish to God she had. My God, how I do wish it’”(217). By ending on this defeatist note rather than with the questions and answersthat usually conclude each chapter of Dare to Discipline, Dobson characterizes drugaddiction as a school-borne contagion without a cure — no space is necessary toqualify or explain. Dobson wavers in Dare to Discipline between two mutuallyexclusive messages. He encourages teachers to give the positive and negativereinforcement that complement the discipline he advocates in the home whilesimultaneously diminishing the moral potential of public schools and teachers.Once he founded Focus on the Family, Dobson acted on the concernsenumerated in Dare to Discipline by aligning his organization with Christian homeschool activists and child development researchers Dr. Raymond and Dorothy Moore.Beginning in the early 1980s, Raymond Moore became a frequent guest on Dobson’s9
popular radio show (Stevens 26). Focus on the Family’s endorsement effectivelydisseminated Moore’s conception of children as both unique and fragile. Unlike homeschool pioneers like John Holt, who found fault with public schools as authoritarianand hierarchical institutions, Moore felt that public schools were simply the wrongkind of authoritarian institution, with a dubious figure at the hierarchy’s zenith.Rather than freeing children from the school’s authority and allowing them to followtheir own interests, as Holt prescribed, the Moores advocated shifting authority fromthe schools to the parents (Stevens 43–45). Their conception of children as vulnerableand schools as dangerous became more elaborate as the Christian home schoolmovement expanded. Christian home school materials stigmatize public schools assites of moral turpitude, referring to alarming but unverified statistics, such as “50percent of [public school] girls will become pregnant out of wedlock beforegraduation day” (Stevens 51). While the Christian home school movement predatesFocus on the Family, the organization has taken up the cause on both the personaland legislative levels. On the organization’s official website, Dobson responds to aparent considering home schooling by noting that children should stay in a “protectedenvironment,” personalizing the advice by concluding that if he and his wife “wereraising our children again, we would home school them” (“Ask Dr. Dobson”).For evangelical Christian political activists home schooling is only a part,though a significant one, of a larger cause, often formulated as parents’ rights.Currently, Focus on the Family is coordinating with other evangelical Christianorganizations to support a movement to add an amendment to the United StatesConstitution guaranteeing “the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing andeducation of their children” (parentalrights.org). This coalition of evangelicalChristians drafted the amendment in response to the near-ratification of the UnitedNations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 2009, meant to protect childrenfrom abuse and secure their rights to express their own opinions. The convention,originally adopted by the UN in 1989, found little resistance in the vast majority ofmember nations. However, Focus on the Family saw this treaty as potentiallyinfringing on parents’ legal abilities to physically discipline children and, along withother lobbying groups, was successful in making the United States the only UNnation besides Somalia to reject the treaty (Mason 955). The parents’ rightsmovement holds up Article 37a of the UN convention for particular scrutiny, whichstates “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment” (“Convention”). Parentalrights.org interprets this article asthe end of a parent’s prerogative to “administer reasonable spankings,” an objectionthat reappears throughout their promotional materials (“Twenty Things you shouldKnow”). This resistance to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child along withthe continuing popularity of Dare to Discipline reveals the extent to which Focus onthe Family’s notions of educational autonomy are entangled with the idea thatphysical force, or a measure of violence, has a place in the home, a place that can be10
successfully moderated by parents without state interference. Robinson Crusoe andFarther Adventures may not seem unduly violent to an audience that openly defends itsability to mete out suitable punishment.Focus on the Family’s EditionsIn addition to encouraging families to take their children out of schools and lobbyingfor the relaxation or abolition of statutes regulating parents’ abilities to disciplinehome school children, Focus on the Family provides resources for teaching in thehome, in effect offering to manage the autonomy sought on behalf of evangelicalChristian families. Among these resources is the series Focus on the Family GreatStories, an imprint of Tyndale House Publishers, which includes classics like DavidCopperfield, Little Women, and Anne of Green Gables. The most famous in this series oftwelve books is Robinson Crusoe. The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe is the onlynovel in the series that, during its four years in print (from 1999-2003), wasexclusively available in paperback from Focus on the Family. The organization’scommitment to promoting the centrality of the family in general and the importanceof paternal involvement in particular makes the Crusoe books a peculiar vehicle fortheir message. Indeed, far from depicting parental control, the first and secondCrusoe novels describe the title character’s escape from and success outside of familylife. In Robinson Crusoe the title character ignores his father’s advice and eventuallyreaps material and spiritual rewards. In Farther Adventures Crusoe develops frominsolent son to absent father — at the beginning of the novel Crusoe longs to go backto sea, but his wife prevents him from doing so by insisting that she accompany him.Conveniently, she dies, and he leaves for his “farther adventures,” abandoning threeyoung children. Though “Where’s Dad” would make a suitable (if snarky) alternatetitle for Farther Adventures, initially the novel hardly seems consistent with Focus onthe Family’s core values. Setting aside Crusoe’s apparent lack of interest infatherhood, the book is horrifically violent — villages are sacked, villagers are raped,and often Crusoe himself is the catalyst. The inclusion of both Robinson Crusoe andFarther Adventures in the series resonates with Focus on the Family’s aims becauseonly the second book suggests that violence is a useful tool — with the caveat that itmust be utilized with the support of other Christians.Robinson CrusoeRobinson Crusoe more overtly promotes Focus on the Family’s educational agenda;Crusoe’s successful attempt to educate Friday can be read as an idealized depiction ofthe home school environment, complete with Crusoe’s rescue of Friday from11
cannibals only slightly more ferocious than a child’s classmates in American publicschools. Crusoe and Friday’s isolation both models the possibility of productiveintimacy between student and instructor in a home school setting and parallels theestrangement of Focus on the Family’s evangelical Christian constituency frommainstream America. Series editor Joe Wheeler encourages these parallels in hisintroduction to Robinson Crusoe. In describing the difficulties Defoe faced as aNonconformist, Wheeler calls the impact of Defoe’s religion on his education “anunexpected blessing” (xxi), taking several pages to explain, correctly, the historicaladvantages enjoyed by the students of Nonconformist Academies over those attendingOxford, Cambridge, and the public schools.8 Wheeler clearly delineates how Defoe’sdevotion to a religion with its own leaders, intellectuals, and, most importantly,institutions of learning, contributed to his literary success.While Wheeler notes the biographical details that might make Defoe seem likea product of a culture marginalized in the same way as American evangelicalChristians, Wheeler does not highlight Crusoe’s education of Friday in the way onemight expect. The results of Friday’s makeshift schooling would seem to be ofprimary importance in an edition designed to appeal to non-institutional educatorsand students, yet Wheeler gives it no more space in the discussion guide than Crusoeand Friday’s escape from the wolves, an episode squarely in what Rousseau wouldconsider the “rigmarole” category. As I will detail below, Wheeler’s approach comesthrough in the content of the discussion questions, but just the allotment of discussionquestions reveals certain editorial priorities. Treating the two sections as equallyrelevant would be an idiosyncratic choice in any classroom, but it seems particularlyodd in a Christian homeschool setting. Crusoe teaches Friday English, ethics, andcosmology with the Bible as their only text — should not this be of greater interestthan the various wounds and attacks catalogued in the encounter with the wolves?Instead, the violent interlude becomes part of Friday’s pedagogical journey. AsChristopher Loar notes, when Friday defends Crusoe and the rest of their party fromthe wolves we see exactly how educated Friday has become as he demonstrates hismastery of European weaponry (18-19). Wheeler’s allocation of discussion questionsgives equal importance to Friday’s martial and spiritual development. This tendencyto underline, even privilege, violent scenes comes to define Wheeler’s approach to thetwo novels.The content of the discussion questions serves much the same purpose. Thechapter titled “Footprint in the Sand” records Crusoe’s spiritual struggles. Crusoe firstinterprets the footprint he discovers in the sand as the work of the devil, thenattributes it to man and finds his faith in God no match for his paralyzing anxiety atthe prospect of confronting the savages. After several days of reflection, Crusoe’s faithreturns, only to be rewarded with evidence of cannibalistic rituals. Rather than focuson Crusoe’s spiritual journey here, Wheeler provides the following question as thecatalyst for discussion: “Cannibalism — we recoil in horror at the very word. What12
are the lessons about life and death we can learn here?” (289). Though the opennessof the question allows Wheeler’s readers to bring in their interpretation of Crusoe’sshifting notion of Providence, Wheeler invites explicit discussion of cannibalism whilemaking no reference to the internal struggle that actually constitutes most of thechapter. Likewise, to Robinson Crusoe’s final chapter, “Wolves,” Wheeler appends thisprompt: “Wolves are an integral part of our folklore and even our daily language. Likeany other animal — human beings included — a wolf is one creature during ordinarytimes and quite another when it is starving. This differentiation needs to be taken intoconsideration when discussing this chapter” (290). Crusoe and Friday confront wolvesseveral times in their journey over the Pyrenees, but as this is the conclusion to thenovel, concentrating on the wolves makes violence and its causes the focal point forunderstanding not just the chapter, but the novel as a whole. In the prompt, Wheelerdirects his readers to empathize with animals, a problematic suggestion in the contextof the chapter. Despite the near-constant threat of attack, Crusoe’s party mostlyescapes injury, but animals suffer greatly. Friday shoots a wolf in the head to defendtheir guide. He subsequently downs a bear by the same method, but with a difference:the bear presents no threat to the group until Friday teases it for Crusoe’sentertainment. In the course of the journey, Crusoe’s party kills over sixty animals,which seems justifiable, if bloody. With guidance from Wheeler’s prompt, thisincident takes on a depressing air of inevitability: animals behave in their own bestinterest, whatever the cost. Violence is part of a natural world that forces humans, likewolves, to spill the blood of others. Wheeler not only chooses to emphasize violencehere, but violence that is free of moral ambiguity. He does not mention Friday’sbizarre dance with and subsequent slaughter of a bear, arguably the most memorableincident after Crusoe leaves the island, instead choosing to discuss the leastambiguous acts of violence — those involving the wolves.Even on the most superficial level, Wheeler presents the novel as a series ofviolent conflicts, using chapter titles and subheadings that play up the goriest parts ofthe novel, occasionally dressing even placid moments blood-red. Eighty percent ofWheeler’s titles and subheadings are identical to those running along the top of theodd-numbered pages in the Victorian copy text. When Crusoe discovers the humanbones left behind by the cannibals, the incident occurs under the subheading “ACannibal Orgy” (157), which Wheeler recycles, with modernized spelling, from thecopy text. Crusoe’s preparation for a confrontation that never occurs takes up achapter called “A State of Siege” (160), a title that Wheeler picks up from the copytext and uses twice, as a title and a subheading (170). In both examples, Wheeler’spreservation and repetition of the Victorian copy text’s evocative headings preparesthe reader for far more gore than he or she will actually find. Wheeler prefaces thetext, structures the body, and asks discussion questions to keep the reader’s focus onviolence in Robinson Crusoe, an editorial approach that continues through FartherAdventures.13
Nothing undermines the potential impact of the Christian education of Crusoeand Friday in the first book so completely as Wheeler’s insistence that it is only partof the story. In his introduction to Robinson Crusoe, Wheeler includes Siberia, asetting from Farther Adventures, in his discussion of the way Defoe uses Crusoe togive readers an omnibus of early eighteenth-century travel literature (xi). Morepointedly, Wheeler announces the projected release of Farther Adventures twice: oncein the introduction and once in the main body of the text (xii, 282). Wheeler closeshis edition of Robinson Crusoe with the portentous “End of Part One,” whileconcluding the sequel Farther Adventures with a definitive “The End.” Why doesFocus on the Family dilute Robinson Crusoe’s overt pedagogical message by using itsedition of Robinson Crusoe to point toward Farther Adventures?I would argue that Crusoe’s evolving comfort with violence from the first bookto the second might offer an explanation. In Robinson Crusoe, when Crusoe realizesthat his island is the site of cannibal sacrifices, he vacillates between urges toannihilate or merely observe them. After first viewing the human remains left behindon the beach, Crusoe dreams of killing cannibals in large numbers swiftly andefficiently with his superior weapons but draws back, engaging them only to freeFriday. When the cannibals return months later, Crusoe, after arming himself andFriday, finds his rage subsiding as he considers the situation: “It occur’d to myThoughts, What Call? What Occasion? Much less, What Necessity was I in to goand dip my Hands in Blood, to attack People, who had neither done, or intended meany Wrong? Who as to me were innocent, and whose barbarous customs were theirown Disaster” (232). Crusoe realizes that he has no spiritual or legal mandate for hisaggression. He allows that Friday does have cause to attack, as he has not only beenabducted by the cannibals but his people are “in a State of War with those veryparticular People” (275). Though this does not prevent Crusoe from engaging thecannibals when he sees that they intend to sacrifice a European (the Spaniard), hegives Frid
Digital Defoe: Studies in Defoe & His Contemporaries 3, no. 1 (fall 2011) ISSN 1948-1802 Robinson Crusoe, Home School Hero MARGARET EUSTACE FRANCE FROM 1970 to 2006, the only paperback edition of Daniel Defoe’s first sequel to The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719), The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719),
2 Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe. The edition of Crusoe used for the purpose of this paper is that edited by Michael Shinagel (New York: Norton and Co., 1975). 3 Such a visit by mutineers who propose to jettison their captain on what they believe to be an uninhabited isle will be the means of Crusoe’s eventual repatriation. 4 Robinson Crusoe .
ROBINSON CRUSOE MEETS WALRAS AND KEYNES1 Once upon a time on an idyllic South Seas Isle lived a shipwrecked sailor, Robinson Crusoe, in solitary splendor. The only product of the island, fortunately adequate for Robinson’s sustenance, was the wild yam, which Robinson found h
Adapted from the writing of Daniel Defoe Illustrated by David Cockcroft Robinson Crusoe A Reading A–Z Level Z Leveled Book Word Count: 2,984 A Selection from Robinson Crusoe Z Z 1 Z 2 Writing Imagine you are Robinson Crusoe. Create several journal entries based on what you are feeling while you are stranded. Be creative. Remember to .
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe (first published in 1719) and Foe by J. M. Coetzee (rewriting of Robinson Crusoe, first published in 1986) are the two works showcasing this transition in focus from His-story to Her-story. Whereas one tells the story of a male castaway Robinson Crusoe who turns out
Robinson Crusoe to help students rethink the meaning and possibilities of their daily existence. WEEK ONE: General Information and Theme 1. Knows general information about Robinson Crusoe (Knowledge) 1.1 Identify unfamiliar words, such as temperance, repentance, and providence. 1.2 State the Unit Theme: Persons who possess the qualities of proactivity and humility can survive and find success .
The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe Title: The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe Author: Daniel Defoe CHAPTER I—START IN LIFE I was born in the year 1632, in the city of York, of a good family, though not of that country, my father being a foreigner of Breme
DANIEL DEFOE ROBINSON CRUSOE Preveo BERISLAV GRGId * Naslovnu stranicu izradio JOSIP VANIŠTA. DANIEL DEFOE ROBINSON CRUSOE Treće izdanje IZDAVAČKO KNJIŽARSKO PODUZEĆE 111 1 a dusi ZAGREB 1968. Štamparija »Vjesnik«, Zagreb — 1968, PRVO POGLAVLJE Moje rođenje i porodica — Sa devetnaest godina pobjegnem
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 6) – 2012 Transplanting for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and other Woody Plant Maintenance Standard Practices (Transplanting) Drip line The hole should be 1.5-2 times the width of the root ball. EX: a 32” root ball should have a minimum wide 48” hole
